Family 'Well-Being' To Be New Criterion In Federal Policies

Washington--President Reagan, acting on a recommendation advanced by
former Undersecretary of Education Gary L. Bauer, has ordered that all
federal policies be assessed for their impact on family "well
being."

The President's executive order, signed Sept. 3, requires the
Education Department and all other federal agencies to weigh proposals
against several criteria, including their potential to strengthen or
erode family stability, marital commitment, and "the authority and
rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their
children."

The order also compels agencies to consider what message their
proposals send the public about the status of the family and what they
convey to young people about "the relationship between their behavior,
their personal responsibility, and the norms of our society."

The directive, which applies to existing as well as proposed
policies and regulations, also asks agency officials to question
whether a specific action would help or hamper the family in performing
its traditional functions and whether it could be performed "by a lower
level of government or by the family itself."

Mr. Bauer, who left the Education Department last February to become
the President's assistant for domestic policy, said the order was
intended to be both a tool to advance Mr. Reagan's agenda on family
issues and a means of offseting past policies that underplayed or
undermined the family.

"Too much of the time there has been a tendency in the bureaucracy
to respond to special-interest groups that have lawyers and lobbyists
and to think only secondarily of the greatest interest group of all:
the family," Mr. Bauer said in an interview last week. He cited the
welfare programs instituted in the 1960's as examples of policies that
"inadvertently undermined the stability of the poor families they were
trying to help."

An interagency task force on the family chaired by Mr. Bauer first
broached the idea of establishing a "family fairness" analysis in a
60-page report drafted last year to assist the White House
domestic-policy council in formulating initiatives for the final months
of the Reagan Administration. (See Education Week, Nov. 19, 1986.)

The report charged that courts and federal policymakers had eroded
family authority, and that the "abrasive experiments of two liberal
decades" had precipitated a decline in the stature of the family.

'Redundant' in Education

Although the Presidential order will apply to federal education
policies, Mr. Bauer said it might be "redundant" in that area because
Secretary of Education William J. Bennett's proposals have been in tune
with Administration concerns.

"In the case of education, we have a Cabinet secretary who already
understands the important role of family in the education of
children,'' Mr. Bauer said. "Nobody needs to remind Secretary Bennett
that we don't need to do anything that could inadvertently undermine
family stability."

Bruce M. Carnes, deputy undersecretary of education, said the order
would not alter the department's course in formulating new initiatives,
but would prompt officials to be wary of any "unintended impact" in
regulations.

Spur to Parent Involvement

Mr. Bauer pointed to a "tendency by school officials to think of
parental involvement" in terms of "a chaperone for the school dance,
when it is obviously much more than that."

He said the Administration hopes to use the executive order to
promote programs that "increase the input of parents and the role of
families in the educational process, particularly when dealing with
disadvantaged" students.

Mr. Bauer also voiced confidence that, despite the cool response in
the Congress and the education community to Mr. Bennett's proposals to
use vouchers to expand parental choice in schooling, some form of
choice eventually would be adopted.

Student-Aid Impact

Alluding to a provision in the order that asks agencies to weigh the
impact of policies on family budgets, Mr. Bauer indicated that
student-aid policies might be reassessed. But he said that "the way the
debate may come out may not be obvious."

One question that could be raised, he said, is whether government
policies have "inadvertently encouraged" an inflation of
higher-education costs, affecting "the budgets of millions of
families."

Mr. Carnes, however, said he did not see the order as a potential
threat to student-aid policies, which benefit families unable to
shoulder the full burden of high college costs. But it could, he said,
cue officials to "make sure the programs do not make the problem
worse."

Under the executive order, agencies must identify and offer a
rationale for policies with a "significant potential negative impact"
on family well-being, and must certify to the Office of Management and
Budget that they have assessed both the negative and positive effects
of proposals.

The White House office of policy development, which already screens
initiatives for their consistency with Administration policy, would add
the family criteria to its review process. When the office's assessment
matches the agency's, Mr. Bauer said, "the issue is moot."

When conflicting evaluations exist, he added, "unresolved
differences will have to be reconciled" before the proposal can
advance.

The policy office will use the assessments to make recommendations
to the domestic policy council, and must submit a final report to the
President within six months.

Impetus from Bauer

Mr. Bauer cited the President's proposal to increase the tax
exemption for dependents as one example of Mr. Reagan's interest in
policies that promote family well-being. But he indicated that the
impetus for the executive order had been his own interest in family
issues.

The executive order reflects the conservative themes Mr. Bauer
sounded during his five-year tenure at the Education Department, where
he was an outspoken advocate of "traditional values." His speeches
sparked controversy on issues ranging from government support for
private schools to political and religious bias in textbooks. (See
Education Week, Feb. 11, 1987.)

The timing of the order, he said, is "a function of the fact that
I'm now here and I obviously have had an interest in keeping this thing
on people's radar screens."

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.